In Support Of The Twin Towers Collapsing Due To Fire .

Bottom line: the government/PBS/PM/SA explanation for the WTC "collapses" fails the most basic conservation-of-energy reality check. Therefore the
government/PBS/PM/SA theory does not fit the observed facts; the notion of a "pancake collapse" cannot account for what happened. The "pancake
collapse theory" explanation is impossible, and thus absurd.

I also notice that steel dropped from the top of the WTC towers would hit in 9.16 seconds after factoring the drag coeffecient of the air at sea
level.

Does this statement factor in the time the steel would take to reach terminal velocity?

As obviously, a falling steel block does not reach terminal velocity immediately upon release, does it. Even if it were an aerodynamically shaped
object, with little air resistance, it would not reach terminal velocity immediately.

Imagine holding a steel ball bearing and dropping it from a great height.
Would the steel ball attain a speed of over 1.5 thousand MPH the instant it left your fingers?

Originally posted by NWOWILLFALL
if a massive crane hoisted the top 15 floors of the North Tower to the same height at which it sat on the morning of 9/11, and then released the top
to fall unimpeded to the ground with nothing but air to block its way, it would have taken approximately 10 seconds to hit down.

It would fall in 9.1 seconds assuming it was made mostly of concrete and steel.

North Tower sitting under the damaged section of the building offered little more resistance to impede the speed of the Tower's collapse than air
itself. This is another unequivocal impossibility.

Didn't you read my source that explained that the WTC towers were 95% air? When you say that you're acting like the wtc towers were 95% steel and
collapsed like they were 95% air. Maybe the building offered little more resistance than air itself because it wsa 95% air?

cutter charges and explosives were placed throughout the core of the building, timed to explode and pop out sections of floors and beams to clear a
path and create the vacuum that was necessary to account for the tumbling speed of the Twin Towers. .

So I'm delusional my ideas (or ideals as I should say) are erroneous anything else?

I don't think your theories are delusional. I also don't think they are erroneous. I don't even know if it's possible to have an erroneous theory.
I also don't think the airplane fire theories are delusional. I don't know what caused the collapse of the WTC towers and I never will.

The wtc towers were hit with airplanes and are on fire. The wtc towers have no audio evidence of explosions. No BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM
BOOM BOOM BOOM like I hear in the demolitions.

If there were explosives what on earth kind of explosions can demolish a building and is totally silent?

The firefighters on the ground said otherwise....It would take mild explosions if thermite is used (which it was) that explains the molten metal in
which jet fuel cannot melt steel...

Oh don't worry it wasn't you....It was Joey...I think.

So thermite (instead of fire) was used to weaken steel and then small explosives were used to finish the steel off? I wonder if thermite would have
detonated the explosives? I wonder what a thermite demolition looks like? I clearly need to find out more about thermite.

Yeah they tell about thermite but I specifically want to know about thermite being used to demolish a building. Do any companies do thermite
demolitions? Who can i e-mail or write a letter to to get some information about thermite and it's uses in demolition. I want to know if it's even
possible to use thermite and explosives in the same demolition.

My 100% non-expert gut tells me that burning hot molten metal would be thrown all over the place, out the window, on the ceiling, everywhere.

"My 100% non-expert gut tells me that burning hot molten metal would be thrown all over the place, out the window, on the ceiling,
everywhere.".....Why? Anyways traces of thermite was at ground zero but you have to do a lot of digging to get that info.

I still need the source about gravity being off on 9/11/2001 and the source that explains in detail how energy was created and, if at all possible, a
source that I e-mail or write a letter to to get some information about thermite and it's uses in demolition. I want to know if it's even possible
to use thermite and explosives in the same demolition. If it's even possible to use thermite in a demolition or if thermite has ever been used in a
demolition.

I also notice that steel dropped from the top of the WTC towers would hit in 9.16 seconds after factoring the drag coeffecient of the air at sea
level.

1. Does this statement factor in the time the steel would take to reach terminal velocity?

2. As obviously, a falling steel block does not reach terminal velocity immediately upon release, does it. Even if it were an aerodynamically shaped
object, with little air resistance, it would not reach terminal velocity immediately.

3. Imagine holding a steel ball bearing and dropping it from a great height.
Would the steel ball attain a speed of over 1.5 thousand MPH the instant it left your fingers?

I think not.

1. yes

2. I never said that it would.

3. No it would not. I never said that it would.

Did you not look at my source? It assumes that the object is starting from a speed of 0 feet or meters per second. You put in the density of the
object and the distance the object must fall. You also put in the drag coeffecient for the density of air at sea level. The object is not at terminal
velocity when it hits the ground.

Feel free to look at the physics for yourself. Play with the source. THe free fall physics calculator!

I'll post it again since you conviently managed to miss it the first time.

A potential energy calculation is based on the ASSUMPTION that the MASS in question is free to fall the DISTANCE in question. That means the
distance must be EMPTY.

psik

It's quite obvious to anyone that reads that thread that OWE, femr2, Major Tom, etc tried to teach you your errors.

Why demonstrate again HERE that you have no idea what the "P" in PE means, nor how it is applied and used while doing physics calculations?

It is quite obvious that you need other people to make your point.

Tell us how an object falls though space that is not empty. And what the point is of doing a calculation through that non-empty space?

By the way, the Laws of Physics don't give a damn about Democracy.

We should demand that our engineering schools build a self-supporting structure such that the top 15% of the structure can be removed and raised 5% of
the structures height then dropped and completely crush the rest. If they can't design and build it then what does that say about 9/11?

All the schools can do is talk. But they don't talk about the distributions of steel and concrete. Rather odd after EIGHT YEARS.

A potential energy calculation is based on the ASSUMPTION that the MASS in question is free to fall the DISTANCE in question. That means the
distance must be EMPTY.

psik

It's quite obvious to anyone that reads that thread that OWE, femr2, Major Tom, etc tried to teach you your errors.

Why demonstrate again HERE that you have no idea what the "P" in PE means, nor how it is applied and used while doing physics calculations?

It is quite obvious that you need other people to make your point.

Tell us how an object falls though space that is not empty. And what the point is of doing a calculation through that non-empty space?

Quite the opposite. It's quite obious that you need other people to make your point. If you used other people then you would realize that you're so
obviously wrong. You have yet to cite a source that says the WTC towers had no potential energy which leads me to believe there is not one because the
WTC towers DID have potential energy.

My point is, that if your friends there can't convince you where you're wrong, that there's no point in trying to educate you until you admit your
errors.

Tell us how an object falls though space that is not empty.

By overcoming the resistance provided by the object that is there.

And what the point is of doing a calculation through that non-empty space?

To determine if the ke is sufficent to satisfy my above answer.

By the way, the Laws of Physics don't give a damn about Democracy.

By the way, Shemp and Joe were the 4th and 5th Stooge.

We should demand that our engineering schools build a self-supporting structure such that the top 15% of the structure can be removed and
raised 5% of the structures height then dropped and completely crush the rest. If they can't design and build it then what does that say about
9/11?

1. My point is, that if your friends there can't convince you where you're wrong, that there's no point in trying to educate you until you admit
your errors.

Tell us how an object falls though space that is not empty.

2. By overcoming the resistance provided by the object that is there.

And what the point is of doing a calculation through that non-empty space?

3. To determine if the ke is sufficent to satisfy my above answer.

We should demand that our engineering schools build a self-supporting structure such that the top 15% of the structure can be removed and
raised 5% of the structures height then dropped and completely crush the rest. If they can't design and build it then what does that say about
9/11?

4. I think you meant can't destroy the bottom?

5. Yeah, cuz that happens in real life.

All the schools can do is talk.

1. They aren't my friends. Internet aquaintances at most.

2. But overcoming that resistance would require energy. It would have to be subtracted from your supposed Potential Energy calculation. So if you
don't know the energy required to overcome the resistance your so called PE calcultation is nonsense anyway.

3. How can you get the above answer when you don't even know the mass of the obstruction. YOur schools can't tell us the steel and concrete on every
level of WTC 1 & 2.

4. I said "the rest", the meaning was obvious.

5. Then they shouldn't have any trouble making a model duplicate the behavior.

6. So if they can teach then why cn't they tell us the distributions of steel and concrete after EIGHT YEARS. Why do we need a Swedish software
engineer to come up with a table that is WRONG?

If what they teach corresponds to reality then they should have been able to make a physical model duplicate the behavior long ago. But instead Purdue
made a simulation where the core columns don't move under the plane's impact. That is educational alright. LOL

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.